Who Wins 2016 Presidential Election?

• cruiser_96

  

  gut;1630001 wrote:Hahaha....Clinton did nothing more than try to stay out of the way...but had his hand in the housing bubble and allowed the internet bubble to build to the point of bursting - big seeds of the Great Recession. Clinton arguably is more to blame than Bush having set the table for the 2008 financial crisis.

  Are you saying that even after 8 years of being in office, W couldn't fix the mess that was given him???
  
  Oh.
• gut

  cruiser_96;1630068 wrote:Are you saying that even after 8 years of being in office, W couldn't fix the mess that was given him???
  
  Oh.

  Well, the economy WAS looking like it was doing pretty well, even if it was artificially fueled with easy money . Monetary policy is technically supposed to be independent, but had he seen the risks he could have exerted influence (more like Clinton planted the seed, Bush watered it). And he DID see risks with Fanny & Freddie, but it fell on deaf ears to a Democratic Congress in 2006.
• fish82

  

  steubbigred;1629992 wrote:I should have said male. By the way Clinton was a good president. His wife will be too. It's all about the economy and Clinton helped make a great economy and then Bush destroyed it.

  Please list for us the specific Clinton policies that "helped make a great economy," followed by the specific Bush policies that "destroyed it."
  
  Thanks in advance.
• HelloAgain

  fish82;1630054 wrote:Yeah, I can see where keeping up with the activity on the GB would take up most of your time. : thumbup:

  You seem to know a lot about my internet activity.
• cruiser_96

  

  gut;1630069 wrote:Well, the economy WAS looking like it was doing pretty well, even if it was artificially fueled with easy money . Monetary policy is technically supposed to be independent, but had he seen the risks he could have exerted influence (more like Clinton planted the seed, Bush watered it). And he DID see risks with Fanny & Freddie, but it fell on deaf ears to a Democratic Congress in 2006.

  Meh. I find it easier and more expedient to blame Bush. And not just me. I like to get my journalist friends involved.
• believer

  

  cruiser_96;1630198 wrote:Meh. I find it easier and more expedient to blame Bush. And not just me. I like to get my journalist friends involved.

  Me too. Bush is simply easier to blame than accepting responsibility for backing an Administration that's so inept, so incompetent, and so corrupt that the Bush Administration actually seems overqualified.
• cruiser_96

  

  believer;1630244 wrote:Me too. Bush is simply easier to blame than accepting responsibility for backing an Administration that's so inept, so incompetent, and so corrupt that the Bush Administration actually seems overqualified.

  Now you're speaking my language!
  
  ps: "friends" = media.
• fish82

  

  HelloAgain;1630153 wrote:You seem to know a lot about my internet activity.

  I was just speculating. Don't get all wound up on me.
• thavoice

  IggyPride00;1623390 wrote:Hillary is going to be the next President.
  
  The Democrat party are the masters of identity politics.
  
  First it was the "first" black man. Now it will be the "first" women. Then the "first" Latino. Then the "first" Gay person. Then the "first" Asian. Then the "first" Lesbian. When they are done with all that they may just top it off with a Tranny in office since they ran out of other firsts.
  
  All the while the GOP will be nominating white males and being accused of being racists.
  
  This is the plan. Look how fast they have turned gay marriage into not only something accepted, but aspirational as just same old male/female marriage is out of vogue now.
  
  The left will continue to get what it wants and the government will keep growing.

  So should the Rs find a gay lesbian asian woman to run in the next election?
  
  I see where Rand Paul 2016 Restore America Now items are starting to pop up.....
• gut

  thavoice;1642080 wrote: I see where Rand Paul 2016 Restore America Now items are starting to pop up.....

  Rand being attacked by both the left and right now....so he must be doing something right, and both sides are taking note.
• like_that

  

  Speaking of Rand. Anybody read his "government bullies?" Half way thru. Good read.
• fish82

  

  Saw some encouraging Rand v. Hillary numbers for Ohio the other day...IIRC he's within 3-4 points of her here.
  
  I'm starting to think he might be the guy.
• pmoney25

  

  He is picking smart battles right now. People are war fatigued, dislike government spying on citizens and believe the drug war to be a failure. He can beat Hillary on those issues. If he can take the Libertarian view in social issues and still keep his personal views,that eliminates the Liberals advantage and it will boil down to the economy.
  
  He needs to avoid and be smart because the media will do their best to call him a libertarian and explain how that means that he doesn't want roads, police or firefighters. That it means we should fall into total anarchy and only the strong survive.
• HelloAgain

  pmoney25;1642302 wrote:He is picking smart battles right now. People are war fatigued, dislike government spying on citizens and believe the drug war to be a failure. He can beat Hillary on those issues.

  Not sure he can win the Republican primary campaigning on scaling back the military and the drug war.
• Con_Alma

  All Citizens are war fatigued until someone dies right here at home on our soil.
  
  You don't keep that from happening by scaling back our military while spending what we spend on entitlements. The first and most important role of our fed is to protect the people not conduct social experiments.
  
  No thanks Mr. Paul. I'll look elsewhere.
• WebFire

  Con_Alma;1642322 wrote:All Citizens are war fatigued until someone dies right here at home on our soil.You don't keep that from happening by scaling back our military while spending what we spend on entitlements. The first and most important role of our fed is to protect the people not conduct social experiments.No thanks Mr. Paul. I'll look elsewhere.

  Protect our people, yes. Have our nose where it doesn't belong, no.
• Mulva

  

  There's simply no room to scale back the military.
  
  
• gut

  Mulva;1642366 wrote:There's simply no room to scale back the military.

  Exactly. I say freeze defense spending, or at least grow it slower than inflation or GDP, for the next 20 years. In real terms, that would be up to a 50% reduction ($350B or so in today's dollars). That's a number that looks about right to me. Sad part is that savings will be wiped out by debt service when rates normalize.
  
  As for Paul, I suspect that ultimately he's a better VP candidate. I like many of his views, but he needs to moderate his timeline. Put him on a ticket with Ben Carson or Scott Walker.
• Con_Alma

  WebFire;1642351 wrote:Protect our people, yes. Have our nose where it doesn't belong, no.

  There's very few locations or issues in the world that we shouldn't have our nose in. We belong wherever we want to be to ensure we can dampen the potential threats or safety of U.S. citizens.
• thavoice

  gut;1642248 wrote:Rand being attacked by both the left and right now....so he must be doing something right, and both sides are taking note.

  True.
  One of the places I work at had an order come through for Rand Paul 2016 Restore America Now items. Wasnt a big order so who knows. Googled it and someone is selling stickers I think with that slogan.
• pmoney25

  

  Con_Alma;1642385 wrote:There's very few locations or issues in the world that we shouldn't have our nose in. We belong wherever we want to be to ensure we can dampen the potential threats or safety of U.S. citizens.

  Is that you John Bolton?
• WebFire

  Con_Alma;1642385 wrote:There's very few locations or issues in the world that we shouldn't have our nose in. We belong wherever we want to be to ensure we can dampen the potential threats or safety of U.S. citizens.

  Here is the headline from WTOL about bombing Iraq targets this morning.
  

  American planes bombed targets in Iraq this morning. President Obama says the aim is to protect Iraqi citizens.

• queencitybuckeye

  Con_Alma;1642322 wrote:
  You don't keep that from happening by scaling back our military while spending what we spend on entitlements. The first and most important role of our fed is to protect the people not conduct social experiments.
  

  Scaling back military spending can easily be accomplished with no effect on capability. At least easily except for congressmen and their pet pork.
• queencitybuckeye

  Con_Alma;1642385 wrote:There's very few locations or issues in the world that we shouldn't have our nose in. We belong wherever we want to be to ensure we can dampen the potential threats or safety of U.S. citizens.

  That nose rarely needs to be attached to someone in a military uniform.
• Con_Alma

  queencitybuckeye;1642504 wrote:Scaling back military spending can easily be accomplished with no effect on capability. At least easily except for congressmen and their pet pork.

  
  I disagree....not with the way government is run an does business presently. If Military funding is scaled back, capability is and will be diminished. Until the manner that we govern changes, reductions in funding will directly correlate to reduction in capability.